READING the News of the World was something of an irregular tradition in our house. Nothing complemented those breeze block Sunday broadsheets better than a salacious sliver of sex scandal.

Alas, in recent weeks the paper has failed to live up to its morally dubious duty to expose vulgar vicars and suburban swingers. Instead it has become little more than the Beckhams' personal photo album.

Perhaps it was desperation to win back readers that forced it into the despicable 'Named, Shamed' edition last Sunday. In my case it worked. I bought my first copy for months after hearing a radio report about the paper's campaign to name Britain's 110,000 paedophiles.

I bought it not to show support, but to confirm my worst fears. It was as bad as I expected.

The paper had printed an initial list of 49 sex offenders complete with stamp-sized pictures of them. This was organised by geographical area, an at-a-glance guide to your local pervert.

Each was given a line or two of copy, presumably cobbled together from newspaper clippings of court cases. So brief were the details, they were dangerously ambiguous. How many Peter Smiths live in the whole of Warrington? Yet only one committed the crime published.

Some of the offences occurred 20 years ago. It is likely that the men involved have long since moved on. One, it has subsequently transpired, died five years ago. All this only becomes an issue, of course, if you accept the unchristian argument that such offenders have forfeited their right to rehabilitation.

The News of the World believes it is doing what people want. Nearly nine out of ten respondents to the paper's own poll said parents should be told if a convicted child-sex offender is living nearby. But what the paper actually revealed is that a sex offender was once convicted in a certain area - a very different piece of information.

Even if those named were still living where the paper said on Saturday, they may well have moved away on Sunday. The News of the World is all but forcing paedophiles to change their identities and disappear underground. That will give them greater impunity to strike again. So much for protecting our children.

Those authorities who are undertaking valid work to protect children by monitoring sex offenders' whereabouts must be devastated that the paper has ruined their hard work.

The tabloid language used on Sunday is equally unhelpful. "Does a monster live near you?" the paper asked. Oh yes, Mr K Kong lives two doors down and we're great friends with the Godzillas at number 20.

It is extremely unhelpful to label paedophiles as monsters. What they do is sick, wicked, sometimes evil; but they are human beings. We must retain that perspective to keep our children safe. As long as we are on the look out for wild-eyed monsters, we will miss the family friend who has wheedled his way into our trust with only one purpose in mind.

Already the backlash has started. An innocent Manchester man has been attacked by a brick-hurling crowd who believed he was on the paper's hit list. In a thin attempt to cover itself, the News of the World had urged readers not to become vigilantes. But what was it expecting after publishing inaccurate scare stories about neighbourhood "monsters"?

Previous experience augured violence: several innocent people, including a 14-year-old girl, have died after public accusations of paedophilia were heeded by the mob.

I'm not suggesting that child sex abusers should be anonymous. Their identities are published in full in contemporaneous court reports, and that is right.

But the News of the World's stance is utterly irresponsible. It may have met one of the editor's objectives, to boost sales. But it has failed to meet the other, to protect children. In fact, it has put them at a greater risk.